In Addition To Being An Ethical Violation, Why Are Data Falsification And Fabrication Problematic?

Violation of codes of scholarly conduct and upstanding beliefs in scientific inquiry

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly behave and upstanding behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the post-obit sample definitions,^[1] reproduced in The COPE report 1999:^[ii]

Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific bulletin or a fake credit or accent given to a scientist"
Swedish definition: "Intention[al] baloney of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from some other researcher's manuscript class or publication; or distortion of the research process in other means."

The consequences of scientific misconduct tin can be damaging for perpetrators and journal audience^[3] ^[4] and for any individual who exposes it.^[5] In addition in that location are public health implications fastened to the promotion of medical or other interventions based on false or fabricated research findings.

Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that report to the Usa Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Enquiry Integrity, point some form of scientific misconduct.^[6] However the ORI will simply investigate allegations of impropriety where enquiry was funded by federal grants. They routinely monitor such research publication for red flags and their investigation is subject to a statute of limitations. Other private organizations like the Committee of Medical Journal Editors (COJE) can only police their ain members.^[7]

The validity of the methods and results of scientific papers are frequently scrutinized in periodical clubs. In this venue, members tin can decide among themselves with the aid of peers if a scientific paper'south ethical standards are met.

Motivation [edit]

According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised hither.^[8]

Career pressure level: Scientific discipline is still a very strongly career-driven subject field. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of loftier-profile scientific papers. Hence, in that location is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
Ease of fabrication: In many scientific fields, results are frequently difficult to reproduce accurately, existence obscured by noise, artifacts, and other inapplicable data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can wait to get away with information technology – or at least merits innocence if their results disharmonize with others in the same field. At that place are few strongly backed systems to investigate possible violations, attempt to press charges, or punish deliberate misconduct. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.^[nine]
Budgetary Gain: In many scientific fields, the nearly lucrative options for professionals are ofttimes selling opinions. Corporations can pay experts to support products directly or indirectly via conferences. Psychologists can make money past repeatedly interim every bit an expert witness in custody proceedings for the same constabulary firms.

Forms [edit]

The U.Southward. National Science Foundation defines three types of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.^[10] ^[xi]

Fabrication is making upwards results and recording or reporting them. This is sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".^[12] A more pocket-sized form of fabrication is where references are included to requite arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance, but are actually fake, or do not support the argument.^[13]
Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is non accurately represented in the research record.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person'southward ideas, processes, results, or words without giving advisable credit. One form is the appropriation of the ideas and results of others, and publishing as to make it appear the author had performed all the piece of work under which the data was obtained. A subset is citation plagiarism – willful or negligent failure to appropriately credit other or prior discoverers, then as to give an improper impression of priority. This is besides known every bit, "commendation amnesia", the "disregard syndrome" and "bibliographic negligence".^[xiv] Arguably, this is the well-nigh common type of scientific misconduct. Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether authors intentionally ignored a highly relevant cite or lacked noesis of the prior piece of work. Discovery credit can too exist inadvertently reassigned from the original discoverer to a better-known researcher. This is a special case of the Matthew upshot.^[15]
- Plagiarism-fabrication – the act of taking an unrelated figure from an unrelated publication and reproducing it exactly in a new publication, claiming that it represents new data.
- Self-plagiarism – or multiple publication of the same content with different titles or in different journals is sometimes likewise considered misconduct; scientific journals explicitly ask authors not to do this. Information technology is referred to every bit "salami" (i.eastward. many identical slices) in the jargon of medical journal editors. According to some editors this includes publishing the same article in a different language.^[16]

Other types of research misconduct are also recognized:

Ghostwriting – the phenomenon where someone other than the named author(due south) makes a major contribution. Typically, this is done to mask contributions from authors with a conflict of involvement.
Conversely, enquiry misconduct is not limited to non list authorship,^{[ commendation needed ]} but also includes the human activity of conferring authorship on those that accept non made substantial contributions to the research.^[17] ^[18] This is done by senior researchers who muscle their style onto the papers of inexperienced junior researchers^[19] equally well every bit others that stack authorship in an effort to guarantee publication. This is much harder to evidence due to a lack of consistency in defining "authorship" or "substantial contribution".^[twenty] ^[21] ^[22]
Scientific misconduct can also occur during the peer-review process by a reviewer or editor with a conflict of interest. Reviewer-coerced commendation tin too inflate the perceived citation impact of a researcher's work and their reputation in the scientific customs,^[23] similar to excessive self-citation. Reviewers are expected to be impartial and appraise the quality of their piece of work. They are expected to declare a conflict of interest to the editors if they are colleagues or competitors of the authors. A rarer case of scientific misconduct is editorial misconduct,^[24] where an editor does not declare conflicts of interest, creates pseudonyms to review papers, gives strongly worded editorial decisions to support reviews suggesting to add excessive citations to their own unrelated works or to add themselves as a co-writer or their name to the title of the manuscript.

Photo manipulation [edit]

Compared to other forms of scientific misconduct, prototype fraud (manipulation of images to misconstrue their meaning) is of particular interest since it can frequently be detected by external parties. In 2006, the Journal of Cell Biology gained publicity for instituting tests to detect photo manipulation in papers that were being considered for publication.^[25] This was in response to the increased usage of programs such as Adobe Photoshop by scientists, which facilitate photo manipulation. Since then more publishers, including the Nature Publishing Group, accept instituted like tests and crave authors to minimize and specify the extent of photo manipulation when a manuscript is submitted for publication. However, there is piffling evidence to point that such tests are applied rigorously. 1 Nature paper published in 2009^[26] has later on been reported to incorporate around twenty separate instances^[27] of image fraud.

Although the type of manipulation that is allowed can depend greatly on the blazon of experiment that is presented and besides differ from one periodical to some other, in general the following manipulations are not immune:^{[ citation needed ]}

splicing together different images to represent a single experiment
changing brightness and contrast of only a part of the image
any change that conceals information, fifty-fifty when information technology is considered to be aspecific, which includes:
- changing brightness and dissimilarity to leave only the about intense betoken
- using clone tools to hide information
showing simply a very pocket-size role of the photograph so that additional information is not visible

Paradigm manipulations are typically done on visually repetitive images such as those of blots and microscope images.^[28]

Helicopter inquiry [edit]

Neo-colonial research or neo-colonial science,^[29] ^[30] frequently described as helicopter research,^[29] parachute scientific discipline^[31] ^[32] or research,^[33] parasitic enquiry,^[34] ^[35] or safari study,^[36] is when researchers from wealthier countries get to a developing country, collect information, travel dorsum to their country, clarify the data and samples, and publish the results with no or fiddling interest of local researchers. A 2003 study by the Hungarian academy of sciences plant that seventy% of articles in a random sample of publications about to the lowest degree-developed countries did non include a local inquiry co-author.^[xxx]

Frequently, during this kind of enquiry, the local colleagues might be used to provide logistics merely are not engaged for their expertise or given credit for their participation in the inquiry. Scientific publications resulting from parachute science ofttimes only contribute to the career of the scientists from rich countries, thus limiting the development of local science capacity (such as funded enquiry centers) and the careers of local scientists.^[29] This grade of "colonial" science has reverberations of 19th century scientific practices of treating non-Western participants equally "others" in order to accelerate colonialism—and critics call for the end of these extractivist practices in club to decolonize knowledge.^[37] ^[38]

This kind of enquiry approach reduces the quality of research because international researchers may non ask the right questions or draw connections to local problems.^[39] The result of this approach is that local communities are unable to leverage the research to their own advantage.^[32] Ultimately, especially for fields dealing with global issues like conservation biological science which rely on local communities to implement solutions, neo-colonial science prevents institutionalization of the findings in local communities in order to accost issues existence studied by scientists.^[32] ^[37]

Responsibilities [edit]

[edit]

All authors of a scientific publication are expected to take fabricated reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to bookish journals for publication.

Simultaneous submission of scientific findings to more one journal or indistinguishable publication of findings is usually regarded every bit misconduct, nether what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named afterward the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–1977, Franz Ingelfinger.^[40]

Guest authorship (where in that location is stated authorship in the absence of interest, besides known as gift authorship) and ghost authorship (where the existent author is not listed as an writer) are commonly regarded every bit forms of research misconduct. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or enquiry misconduct for failing to verify reports authored by others or past a commercial sponsor. Examples include the example of Gerald Schatten who co-authored with Hwang Woo-Suk, the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named as guest author of papers fabricated by Malcolm Pearce,^[41] (Chamberlain was exonerated from collusion in Pearce's deception)^[42] – and the coauthors with Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include that of Charles Nemeroff,^[43] then the editor-in-chief of Neuropsychopharmacology, and a well-documented case involving the drug Actonel.^[44]

Authors are expected to proceed all study data for later examination even subsequently publication. The failure to keep data may be regarded as misconduct. Some scientific journals crave that authors provide information to permit readers to determine whether the authors might accept commercial or not-commercial conflicts of interest. Authors are likewise commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, specially where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of wrong information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. Fiscal pressures on universities have encouraged this blazon of misconduct. The majority of contempo cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies.^[43] ^[45]

Enquiry institution responsibility [edit]

In general, defining whether an individual is guilty of misconduct requires a detailed investigation by the private'due south employing bookish institution. Such investigations require detailed and rigorous processes and can be extremely costly. Furthermore, the more senior the individual under suspicion, the more likely it is that conflicts of interest volition compromise the investigation. In many countries (with the notable exception of the United States) conquering of funds on the ground of fraudulent data is not a legal offence and there is consequently no regulator to oversee investigations into alleged inquiry misconduct. Universities therefore accept few incentives to investigate allegations in a robust fashion, or human activity on the findings of such investigations if they vindicate the accusation.

Well publicised cases illustrate the potential office that senior academics in research institutions play in concealing scientific misconduct. A Rex's Higher (London) internal investigation showed enquiry findings from i of their researchers to exist 'at best unreliable, and in many cases spurious'^[46] just the college took no activity, such as retracting relevant published research or preventing further episodes from occurring. It was but 10 years later, when an entirely dissever form of misconduct by the same private was being investigated by the General Medical Quango, that the internal report came to light.^{[ citation needed ]}

In a more contempo case^[47] an internal investigation at the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune determined that in that location was evidence of misconduct past Dr. Gopal Kundu, but an external committee was and then organised which dismissed the allegation, and the NCCS issued a memorandum exonerating the authors of all charges of misconduct. Undeterred by the NCCS exoneration, the relevant periodical (Journal of Biological Chemistry) withdrew the newspaper based on its own analysis.

Scientific peer responsibility [edit]

Some academics believe that scientific colleagues who suspect scientific misconduct should consider taking breezy action themselves, or reporting their concerns.^[48] This question is of great importance since much research suggests that it is very hard for people to act or come forward when they come across unacceptable behavior, unless they have aid from their organizations. A "Convenient Guide," and the being of a confidential organizational ombudsman may help people who are uncertain about what to do, or afraid of bad consequences for their speaking up.^[49]

Responsibility of journals [edit]

Journals are responsible for safeguarding the research record and hence have a critical role in dealing with suspected misconduct. This is recognised by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which has issued clear guidelines^[50] on the course (e.one thousand. retraction) that concerns over the research tape should take.

The COPE guidelines state that journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they accept clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a consequence of misconduct (e.g. information fabrication) or honest error (e.thousand. miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism and unethical research.
Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of business organisation if they receive inconclusive prove of research or publication misconduct by the authors, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable only the authors' institution will not investigate the case, they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has non been, or would not exist, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not exist available for a considerable time.
Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a pocket-sized portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially considering of honest fault), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does non run into authorship criteria has been included).

Evidence emerged in 2012 that journals learning of cases where there is strong testify of possible misconduct, with issues potentially affecting a large portion of the findings, frequently fail to consequence an expression of concern or correspond with the host institution and then that an investigation tin can be undertaken. In i instance the Periodical of Clinical Oncology issued a Correction despite potent bear witness that the original paper was invalid.^[51] ^{[ failed verification ]} In some other instance,^[26] Nature allowed a Blunder to be published despite clear evidence of image fraud. Subsequent Retraction of the paper required the actions of an independent whistleblower.^[52]

The cases of Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii^[53] in anaesthesiology focussed attention on the role that journals play in perpetuating scientific fraud as well equally how they can bargain with information technology. In the Boldt case, the Editors-in-Chief of 18 specialist journals (more often than not anaesthesia and intensive care) made a articulation statement regarding 88 published clinical trials conducted without Ideals Committee approval. In the Fujii case, involving well-nigh 200 papers, the periodical Anesthesia & Analgesia, which published 24 of Fujii'south papers, has accepted that its handling of the issue was inadequate. Following publication of a Letter to the Editor from Kranke and colleagues in April 2000,^[54] along with a non-specific response from Dr. Fujii, there was no follow-upwardly on the allegation of data manipulation and no request for an institutional review of Dr. Fujii's research. Anesthesia & Analgesia went on to publish eleven additional manuscripts by Dr. Fujii following the 2000 allegations of research fraud, with Editor Steven Shafer stating^[55] in March 2012 that subsequent submissions to the Journal by Dr. Fujii should not have been published without offset vetting the allegations of fraud. In Apr 2012 Shafer led a group of editors to write a joint statement,^[56] in the form of an ultimatum made available to the public, to a large number of bookish institutions where Fujii had been employed, offering these institutions the adventure to attest to the integrity of the majority of the allegedly fraudulent papers.

Consequences of scientific misconduct [edit]

Consequences for science [edit]

The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of discover it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For cases of made prove, the consequences tin be wide-ranging, with others working to ostend (or refute) the simulated finding, or with research agendas being distorted to accost the fraudulent evidence. The Piltdown Man fraud is a case in point: The significance of the bona-fide fossils that were being found was muted for decades because they disagreed with Piltdown Human and the preconceived notions that those faked fossils supported. In add-on, the prominent paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward spent fourth dimension at Piltdown each year until he died, trying to discover more Piltdown Man remains. The misdirection of resource kept others from taking the real fossils more seriously and delayed the reaching of a correct understanding of human development. (The Taung Child, which should have been the death knell for the view that the homo brain evolved first, was instead treated very critically because of its disagreement with the Piltdown Man show.)

In the instance of Prof Don Poldermans, the misconduct occurred in reports of trials of treatment to foreclose death and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing operations.^[57] The trial reports were relied upon to issue guidelines that practical for many years across North America and Europe.^[58]

In the case of Dr Alfred Steinschneider, ii decades and tens of millions of inquiry dollars were lost trying to observe the elusive link between baby slumber apnea, which Steinschneider said he had observed and recorded in his laboratory, and sudden babe decease syndrome (SIDS), of which he stated it was a precursor. The embrace was blown in 1994, 22 years after Steinschneider's 1972 Pediatrics paper claiming such an clan,^[59] when Waneta Hoyt, the mother of the patients in the newspaper, was arrested, indicted and convicted on five counts of 2nd-degree murder for the smothering deaths of her five children.^[60] While that in itself was bad plenty, the paper, presumably written as an attempt to salve infants' lives, ironically was ultimately used as a defence force by parents suspected in multiple deaths of their ain children in cases of Münchausen syndrome by proxy. The 1972 Pediatrics paper was cited in 404 papers in the interim and is notwithstanding listed on Pubmed without comment.^[61]

Consequences for those who expose misconduct [edit]

The potentially astringent consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct besides reverberate on the institutions that host or employ them and likewise on the participants in any peer review process that has allowed the publication of questionable research. This means that a range of actors in any instance may have a motivation to suppress whatsoever evidence or proposition of misconduct. Persons who betrayal such cases, unremarkably called whistleblowers, find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means.^[41] These negative consequences for exposers of misconduct have driven the development of whistle blowers charters – designed to protect those who raise concerns.

Data bug [edit]

Exposure of fraudulent information [edit]

With the advancement of the internet, at that place are now several tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism and multiple publication inside biomedical literature. 1 tool developed in 2006 past researchers in Dr. Harold Garner's laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà vu,^[62] an open-admission database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication. All of the entries in the database were discovered through the use of text data mining algorithm eTBLAST, also created in Dr. Garner'south laboratory. The cosmos of Déjà vu^[63] and the subsequent classification of several hundred articles contained therein take ignited much give-and-take in the scientific customs apropos issues such equally ethical behavior, journal standards, and intellectual copyright. Studies on this database have been published in journals such as Nature and Science, among others.^[64] ^[65]

Other tools which may be used to detect fraudulent data include mistake analysis. Measurements generally have a small-scale corporeality of error, and repeated measurements of the aforementioned item will generally result in slight differences in readings. These differences tin be analyzed, and follow certain known mathematical and statistical properties. Should a prepare of data appear to be too faithful to the hypothesis, i.east., the amount of error that would commonly exist in such measurements does not announced, a conclusion tin be fatigued that the data may have been forged. Fault analysis alone is typically not sufficient to prove that information have been falsified or fabricated, but it may provide the supporting evidence necessary to confirm suspicions of misconduct.

Data sharing [edit]

Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, fourth dimension-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct."^[66]

Notable cases [edit]

Andrew Wakefield, who claimed links betwixt the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel illness, was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned from medicine by the Uk General Medical Council following an investigation by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.^[67]

References [edit]

^ Nylenna, Chiliad.; Andersen, D.; Dahlquist, Yard.; Sarvas, K.; Aakvaag, A. (1999). "Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries". Lancet. 354 (9172): 57–61. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07133-5. PMID 10406378. S2CID 36326829.
^ "Coping with fraud" (PDF). The COPE Report 1999: xi–18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-28. Retrieved 2006-09-02 . It is 10 years, to the calendar month, since Stephen Lock ... Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet.
^ Xie, Yun (2008-08-12). "What are the consequences of scientific misconduct?". Ars Technica . Retrieved 2013-03-01 .
^ Redman, B. K.; Merz, J. F. (2008). "Sociology: Scientific Misconduct: Exercise the Punishments Fit the Law-breaking?" (PDF). Scientific discipline. 321 (5890): 775. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.1158052. PMID 18687942. S2CID 206512870.
^ "Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower in Misconduct in Science Cases". Enquiry Triangle Constitute. 1995. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-08-24. Retrieved 2012-05-24 .
^ Singh, Dr. Yatendra Kumar; Kumar Dubey, Bipin (2021). Introduction of Enquiry Methods and Publication Ethics. New Delhi: Friends Publications (India). p. 90. ISBN978-93-90649-38-ix.
^ https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf^{[ bare URL PDF ]}
^ Goodstein, David (January–Feb 2002). "Scientific misconduct". Academe. 88 (1): 28–31. doi:10.2307/40252116. JSTOR 40252116.
^ Fanelli, D. (2009). Tregenza, Tom (ed.). "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Assay of Survey Data". PLOS I. 4 (5): e5738. Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.5738F. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. PMC2685008. PMID 19478950.
^ "New Research Misconduct Policies" (PDF). NSF. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-09-10. Retrieved 2013-03-01 .
^ 45 CFR Function 689 [one]
^ Shapiro, G.F. (1992). "Data audit by a regulatory agency: Its outcome and implication for others". Accountability in Research. 2 (three): 219–29. doi:10.1080/08989629208573818. PMID 11653981.
^ Emmeche, slide 5
^ Garfield, Eugene (January 21, 2002). "Demand Citation Vigilance". The Scientist. 16 (2): 6. Retrieved 2009-07-xxx .
^ Emmeche, slide iii, who refers to the phenomenon as Dulbecco's police force.
^ "Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals". The World Association of Medical Editors. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. Retrieved 2009-07-thirty .
^ "ICMJE – Dwelling house". www.icmje.org . Retrieved 3 Apr 2018.
^ "Publication Ideals Policies for Medical Journals". The Globe Association of Medical Editors. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. Retrieved 2009-07-xxx .
^ Kwok, L. S. (2005). "The White Bull outcome: Calumniating coauthorship and publication parasitism". Periodical of Medical Ethics. 31 (9): 554–56. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010553. PMC1734216. PMID 16131560.
^ Bates, T.; Anić, A.; Marusić, Grand.; Marusić, A. (2004). "Authorship Criteria and Disclosure of Contributions: Comparison of 3 General Medical Journals with Unlike Author Contribution Forms". JAMA. 292 (ane): 86–88. doi:10.1001/jama.292.1.86. PMID 15238595.
^ Bhopal, R.; Rankin, J.; McColl, E.; Thomas, 50.; Kaner, E.; Stacy, R.; Pearson, P.; Vernon, B.; Rodgers, H. (1997). "The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical kinesthesia". BMJ. 314 (7086): 1009–12. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7086.1009. PMC2126416. PMID 9112845.
^ Wager, Eastward. (2007). "Do medical journals provide articulate and consequent guidelines on authorship?". MedGenMed. 9 (3): sixteen. PMC2100079. PMID 18092023.
^ Wren, Jonathan D; Valencia, Alfonso; Kelso, Janet (15 September 2019). "Reviewer-coerced citation: case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention". Bioinformatics. 35 (eighteen): 3217–18. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz071. PMC6748764. PMID 30698640.
^ Clergyman, Marker; Kirschner, Denise; Iwasa, Yoh (March 2020). "JTB Editorial Malpractice: A Case Study". Journal of Theoretical Biological science. 488: 110171. Bibcode:2020JThBi.48810171C. doi:ten.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110171. PMID 32007131.
^ Nicholas Wade (2006-01-24). "It May Look Authentic; Here'south How to Tell Information technology Isn't". New York Times . Retrieved 2010-04-01 .
^ ^a ^b Kim, Yard. S.; Kondo, T.; Takada, I.; Youn, M. Y.; Yamamoto, Y.; Takahashi, S.; Matsumoto, T.; Fujiyama, Due south.; Shirode, Y.; Yamaoka, I.; Kitagawa, H.; Takeyama, G. I.; Shibuya, H.; Ohtake, F.; Kato, South. (2009). "Deoxyribonucleic acid demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression". Nature. 461 (7266): 1007–12. Bibcode:2009Natur.461.1007K. doi:ten.1038/nature08456. PMID 19829383. S2CID 4426439. (Retracted, encounter doi:10.1038/nature11164)
^ 11jigen (2012-01-15). "Shigeaki Kato (the University of Tokyo): Dna demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression". Katolab-imagefraud.blogspot.co.uk . Retrieved 2013-08-04 .
^ Ritchie, Stuart (2021-07-02). "Why Are Gamers So Much Better Than Scientists at Catching Fraud?". The Atlantic . Retrieved 2021-07-19 .
^ ^a ^b ^c Minasny, Budiman; Fiantis, Dian; Mulyanto, Budi; Sulaeman, Yiyi; Widyatmanti, Wirastuti (2020-08-15). "Global soil science research collaboration in the 21st century: Time to finish helicopter inquiry". Geoderma. 373: 114299. Bibcode:2020Geode.373k4299M. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114299. ISSN 0016-7061.
^ ^a ^b Dahdouh-Guebas, Farid; Ahimbisibwe, J.; Van Moll, Rita; Koedam, Nico (2003-03-01). "Neo-colonial science past the nearly industrialised upon the least adult countries in peer-reviewed publishing". Scientometrics. 56 (3): 329–343. doi:10.1023/A:1022374703178. ISSN 1588-2861. S2CID 18463459.
^ "Q&A: Parachute Science in Coral Reef Enquiry". The Scientist Magazine® . Retrieved 2021-03-24 .
^ ^a ^b ^c "The Problem With 'Parachute Scientific discipline'". Science Friday . Retrieved 2021-03-24 .
^ "Scientists Say It's Time To Stop 'Parachute Inquiry'". NPR.org . Retrieved 2021-03-24 .
^ Health, The Lancet Global (2018-06-01). "Closing the door on parachutes and parasites". The Lancet Global Wellness. vi (6): e593. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30239-0. ISSN 2214-109X. PMID 29773111. S2CID 21725769.
^ Smith, James (2018-08-01). "Parasitic and parachute research in global health". The Lancet Global Health. vi (8): e838. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30315-2. ISSN 2214-109X. PMID 30012263. S2CID 51630341.
^ "Helicopter Research". TheFreeDictionary.com . Retrieved 2021-03-24 .
^ ^a ^b Vos, Asha de. "The Trouble of 'Colonial Science'". Scientific American . Retrieved 2021-03-24 .
^ "The Traces of Colonialism in Science". Observatory of Educational Innovation . Retrieved 2021-03-24 .
^ Stefanoudis, Paris V.; Licuanan, Wilfredo Y.; Morrison, Tiffany H.; Talma, Sheena; Veitayaki, Joeli; Woodall, Lucy C. (2021-02-22). "Turning the tide of parachute scientific discipline". Current Biology. 31 (4): R184–R185. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.029. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 33621503.
^ Toy, Jennifer (2002). "The Ingelfinger Rule: Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77" (PDF). Scientific discipline Editor. 25 (6): 195–198.
^ ^a ^b Lock, S (June 17, 1995). "Lessons from the Pearce affair: treatment scientific fraud". BMJ. 310 (6994): 1547–48. doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6994.1547. PMC2549935. PMID 7787632. (registration required)
^ "Independent Committee of Research into the publication of articles in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (1994–1995)". Retrieved 2011-08-26 .
^ ^a ^b "Journal editor quits in conflict scandal". The Scientist . Retrieved 3 April 2018.
^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-02-02. Retrieved 2008-03-22 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create every bit title (link)
^ Dickerson, John (2005-12-22). "Did a British university sell out to P&G?". Slate . Retrieved 2013-08-04 .
^ Wilmshurst P (2002). "Institutional corruption in medicine (2002)". British Medical Journal. 325 (7374): 1232–35. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1232. PMC1124696. PMID 12446544.
^ Jayaraman, K. S. (June fourteen, 2007). "Indian scientists battle periodical retraction". Nature. 447 (7146): 764. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..764J. doi:x.1038/447764a. PMID 17568715.
^ See Gerald Koocher & Patricia Keith Speigel (22 July 2010). "Peers Nip Misconduct in the Bud". Nature. 466 (7305): 438–xl. Bibcode:2010Natur.466..438K. doi:10.1038/466438a. PMID 20651674. S2CID 4396687. and (with Joan Sieber) Responding to Inquiry Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide, July 2010.
^ Rowe, Mary; Wilcox, Linda; Gadlin, Howard (2009). "Dealing with – or Reporting – 'Unacceptable' Behavior – with additional thoughts about the 'Bystander Effect'" (PDF). Periodical of the International Ombudsman Clan. 2 (1): 52–64.
^ Retraction Guidelines (PDF)
^ Roman-Gomez, J.; Jimenez-Velasco, A.; Agirre, X.; Prosper, F.; Heiniger, A.; Torres, A. (2005). "Lack of CpG Isle Methylator Phenotype Defines a Clinical Subtype of T-Cell Astute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Associated with Good Prognosis" (PDF). Periodical of Clinical Oncology. 23 (28): 7043–49. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.01.4944. hdl:10171/17316. PMID 16192589.
^ "Shikeagi Kato, who resigned post in March, retracts Nature paper". RetractionWatch. 2012-06-13. Retrieved 2013-03-01 .
^ "Major fraud probe of Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii may challenge retraction record". RetractionWatch. 2012-03-08. Retrieved 2013-08-04 .
^ Kranke, P.; Apfel, C. C.; Roewer, N.; Fujii, Y. (2000). "Reported information on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. Are incredibly overnice!". Anesthesia and Analgesia. xc (4): 1004–07. doi:10.1213/00000539-200004000-00053. PMID 10735823.
^ Fujii Statement of Business (PDF)
^ Fujii Join EIC Statement (PDF)
^ Vogel, One thousand. (30 Jan 2014). "Doubtable Drug Research Blamed for Massive Decease Toll". Science. 343 (6170): 473–74. Bibcode:2014Sci...343..473V. doi:10.1126/science.343.6170.473. PMID 24482457.
^ Cole, G. D.; Francis, D. P. (29 Baronial 2014). "Perioperative beta blockade: guidelines do non reflect the problems with the testify from the DECREASE trials". BMJ. 349 (aug29 8): g5210. doi:ten.1136/bmj.g5210. PMID 25172044. S2CID 13845087.
^ Steinschneider A (October 1972). "Prolonged apnea and the sudden infant death syndrome: clinical and laboratory observations". Pediatrics. 50 (4): 646–54. doi:ten.1542/peds.fifty.4.646. PMID 4342142. S2CID 8561269.
^ Talan, Jamie; Firstman, Richard (1997). The death of innocents. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN978-0553100136.
^ Steinschneider, A (2013-03-25). "Prolonged apnea and the sudden infant death syndrome: clinical and laboratory observations". Pediatrics. 50 (4): 646–54. doi:10.1542/peds.l.4.646. PMID 4342142. S2CID 8561269.
^ "Déjà vu: Medline indistinguishable publication database". dejavu.vbi.vt.edu . Retrieved 2013-08-04 .
^ "Deja vu: Medline duplicate publication database". dejavu.vbi.vt.edu. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2013-08-04 .
^ Errami M; Garner Hour (2008-01-23). "A tale of 2 citations". Nature. 451 (7177): 397–99. Bibcode:2008Natur.451..397E. doi:10.1038/451397a. PMID 18216832. S2CID 4358525.
^ Long TC; Errami 1000; George AC; Sunday Z; Garner 60 minutes (2009-03-06). "Scientific Integrity: Responding to Possible Plagiarism". Science. 323 (5919): 1293–94. doi:10.1126/science.1167408. PMID 19265004. S2CID 28467385.
^ Lee, Kirby (2006). "Ethics: Increasing accountability". Nature. Archived from the original on 2012-09-12. Retrieved 2010-08-16 .
^ "Dr. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield: Determination on Serious Professional person Misconduct (SPM) and Sanction" (PDF). General Medical Quango. 24 May 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 August 2011. Retrieved 10 August 2011.

External links [edit]

Media related to Scientific misconduct at Wikimedia Commons
Publication ethics checklist (PDF) (for routine utilize during manuscript submission to a scientific periodical)